How is the Supreme Court confirmation going to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

mc

No one doubts she’s smart. So is Ted Cruz, who went to Princeton and Harvard Law.

Neither one belongs on the SCOTUS.

There are many more qualified candidates. Merrick Garland comes to mind.

But she’s a right-wing judge who opposes abortion rights and the ACA as well as many conservative causes like guns.

These hearings are a sham. Wait for the next POTUS to place a new justice on the court.

It also wasn't unanimous. All other Obama and Trump nominees had unanimous "well-qualified" ratings. She hasn't been a judge for very long at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

Perhaps true, but she’s barely been a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It is certainly helpful, especially given the context that she was not a judge for a very long time. I do want my judges having litigation experience and practical experience before trying the highest cases of the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dems are fear mongering again on pre-existing conditions. Yawn...

Where's the written guarantee from the GOP that they'll protect them???

The GOP is suing to get rid of protections for preexisting conditions as well as abolish the ACA, stripping millions of Americans of health insurance.

You may not fear that, but I sure do. I have preexisting conditions. I need health insurance to stay alive.

Yawn as much as you want. I hope a fly lands in your mouth and lays eggs, maggot.

Plus, the Supreme Court issue is the ridiculous notion that it is unconstitutional for Congress to enact a law to regulate health insurance. This I how loony Republicans have become, to claim that Congress is not permitted to regulate commerce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear god...
Mike Lee is still going...
How many particles sprayed?

This is what Mike Lee said this morning.

He has a fever. Senator Lee is still contagious.

Since when is ten “the appropriate number of days”?

New data has updated guidelines

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/end-home-isolation.html

[Anonymous]

Josh Hawley is a complete @sshole. I had no idea who he was just saw some privileged white guy shouting (I guess it's not really a surprise....).

[Anonymous]

Did anyone use the word "dogma" yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It is certainly helpful, especially given the context that she was not a judge for a very long time. I do want my judges having litigation experience and practical experience before trying the highest cases of the land.

So, you were against Kagan who was never a judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear god...
Mike Lee is still going...
How many particles sprayed?

This is what Mike Lee said this morning.

He has a fever. Senator Lee is still contagious.

Since when is ten “the appropriate number of days”?

New data has updated guidelines

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/if-you-are-sick/end-home-isolation.html

That's if you can't get testing. Lee is one of only 100 Senators, sitting in a hearing room for hours on end with many other important people, several of whom are very high risk. He should be tested, as should they all.

I wonder how many in that room would be positive if they tested them? Ted Cruz seems to know - interesting that he chose to not be there, as those with Hispanic ancestry seem to have a tougher time with this virus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Like Kagan? Few years at W&C after Mikva and Marshall and before becoming a judge?

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It is certainly helpful, especially given the context that she was not a judge for a very long time. I do want my judges having litigation experience and practical experience before trying the highest cases of the land.

[Anonymous]

Hawley is definitely an asshole.

https://twitter.com/hawleymo/status/1315635085916463161?s=21

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A substantial majority of the ABA rates ACB well qualified.

Link?

I don’t know how to embed the Twitter link but it is a letter from the ABA to Feinstein and Graham.

Here is the link.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.10.11%20Chair%20rating%20letter%20to%20Graham%20and%20Feinstein%20re%20nomination%20of%20Amy%20Coney%20Barrett_54996751_1.PDF

It is good to keep in mind that the ABA Standing Committee looks at legal ability. Skills only. No one really doubts that she has the intellectual horsepower to be a justice. The question is whether she will consistently place the Constitution of the United States of America over her personal views. There is a substantial question, given Barrett's own statements over time, whether she is able to do so. That is not a judgment about her ability. That is her choice. My view, is that she can adhere to both only by withdrawing her candidacy (though I see no reason why she need resign her seat from the 7th Circuit).

She practiced litigation for 2 years. I am 31 and I have practiced in a courtroom longer than her.

Then you would know that being a litigator is not a sine qua non. Powell was a corporate lawyer and Brennan was a labor lawyer. And what KIND of litigator is necessary? Muc of the work of the USSC is administrative law. Constitutional law? Individual liberties?

A storied career as a litigator is not necessary.

It’s not necessary, but I think it’s very desireable. If you haven’t been personally invested in the meaning of judicial review, procedural rules, statutory interpretation... then you don’t really fully understand. It’s like coaching a game you’ve never actually played. Experience as a regulator or legislator would be equally good. Even a non-lawyer regulator — say a former CDC head — would bring a valuable perspective to the stakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dems are fear mongering again on pre-existing conditions. Yawn...

Yawn, but if you or your children have pre-existing conditions you won't be yawning.